While this is certainly a step in the right direction, what I'd like to this evolving into is having a separate Sharing folder/category/whatever on your Steam account. If you're done with a game and know that you won't be playing it anytime soon (or ever), move that game to your Sharing folder/category. Any game designated as Sharing can be played by an authorized friend or family member without being kicked out of that game if/when you (the lender) starts playing a different game, that's obviously not in the Sharing folder/category.

That would be a great implementation. That said, not sure how they could get developers/publishers on board.

I would expect that they're already on board, since this current version of the feature has been confirmed by Valve. Besides, what I described is no different than how things have always been on consoles.

Let's say you and I each have a 360. If I have a 360 game that you're interested in playing and I'm done with it, I can lend you the disc. You can play the game on your 360 as much as you want, whenever you want, regardless of whether or not I'm playing another game on my 360.

So what I described is basically just the digitial equivalent. If I have a steam game that I'm done with, I put it in my Sharing folder. Then, assuming you've been authorized, you could "borrow" any game from my Sharing folder, allowing you to play any of those games whenever you want, even if I'm playing something else (any game not in my Sharing folder) at the same time. If for whatever reason I wanted to play one of my shared games, I would have to move it from my Sharing folder back to my "active" folder.

It should lock only that specific game. Maybe if this program goes well...

While this is certainly a step in the right direction, what I'd like to this evolving into is having a separate Sharing folder/category/whatever on your Steam account. If you're done with a game and know that you won't be playing it anytime soon (or ever), move that game to your Sharing folder/category. Any game designated as Sharing can be played by an authorized friend or family member without being kicked out of that game if/when you (the lender) starts playing a different game, that's obviously not in the Sharing folder/category.

That might work if there was a limit on how soon one could put it into that category after the last substantial play session (say 30mins) with a game.

This is really neat, I could see me getting a lot of use out of this with my brother and father, who play games but not in a big way. They could try stuff out without having to commit to a purchase. Very cool.

I'm also a big single-player gamer, so I'm assuming I could still play offline while the kids are online?

There is no indication if this will affect offline mode (hope not), I have used it a lot to play in several computers at the same time.

The sharing option is good if it can be combined with offline mode in the secondary machines. If not it is only a way to share games without giving out your password, mostly good for Steam as more people will be creating accounts. In fact they could increase their user base tremendously even if those are only "ghost accounts" with very little activity.

Who owns the DLC and in-game content associated with a borrowed title?
A borrower will have access to the lender’s DLC, but borrowers may not purchase DLC for a base game they don't own. Any player may purchase, trade, earn, or otherwise acquire in-game content while playing a game, but in-game items cannot be shared between accounts. These items remain associated with the account that purchased or acquired them, whether borrowing or lending the base game.

I wonder if this applies to the Steam Trading Cards - if, for example, I can earn cards for playing games I borrow from another player. They're not technically in-game content or DLC, so who knows?

I see a lot of excitement about this, but if (as I understand) the games have to be accessed on the same computer I'm not sure why this is much of a gain. I guess some people care about achievements- I can see that as a gain. Also, a way to potentially farm cards. Otherwise, it's the game running on the same pc just like it is now. As to separate saves- that's pretty common within a game as well. I guess I see the initiative as a moderate gain, but don't see where this opens the flood gates. I see the potential of this change, absolutely- but not sure how much there is here to really be excited about.

Everything that starts out as a cultural revolution ends up as capitalist routine.
-David Brooks || Steam: Demonbox

This can have a totally weird effect in game economics. So, a ridiculously low priced (Christmas Sale) game can suddenly be up to 10 times cheaper if a group of friends decides they'll play the game each one in turn.

Single player only, story driven games will get weird. Those with shorter lengths? Like Brothers? Maybe those will be off limits.

And comparing this to lending console disks isn't really feasible, since the geographical limitations are much, much smaller, even if it's region locked. The fact it's digital, up in the sky means the potential user base is that much bigger.

Interesting times. It will be fun to see how this pans out. I mean, there's a rightful claim that periodic sales with heavy discounts have warped the value of a game, particularly if the game was interesting but not a day one perch.

This can have a totally weird effect in game economics. So, a ridiculously low priced (Christmas Sale) game can suddenly be up to 10 times cheaper if a group of friends decides they'll play the game each one in turn.

I just don't see that happening since the owner won't be able to play any games they own through steam while others are "borrowing" a game. Are they just going to go on Steam hiatus for 3 weeks while 10 of there friends play the game one at a time?

This can have a totally weird effect in game economics. So, a ridiculously low priced (Christmas Sale) game can suddenly be up to 10 times cheaper if a group of friends decides they'll play the game each one in turn.

I just don't see that happening since the owner won't be able to play any games they own through steam while others are "borrowing" a game.

Incorrect. The owner (lender) can play his/her games at any time.

FAQ wrote:

As the lender, you may always access and play your games at any time. If you decide to start playing when a friend is already playing one of your games, he/she will be given a few minutes to either purchase the game or quit playing.

This can have a totally weird effect in game economics. So, a ridiculously low priced (Christmas Sale) game can suddenly be up to 10 times cheaper if a group of friends decides they'll play the game each one in turn.

I just don't see that happening since the owner won't be able to play any games they own through steam while others are "borrowing" a game.

Incorrect. The owner (lender) can play his/her games at any time.

FAQ wrote:

As the lender, you may always access and play your games at any time. If you decide to start playing when a friend is already playing one of your games, he/she will be given a few minutes to either purchase the game or quit playing.

Yes, I understand that. In the context of his idea (if you had plan to lend out your game and let 10 friends play it consecutively) it's just not going to work. Are you going to kick them out of their game all the time?

Yes, I understand that. In the context of his idea (if you had plan to lend out your game and let 10 friends play it consecutively) it's just not going to work. Are you going to kick them out of their game all the time?

Imagine a queue and I'm the first.

Someone would buy the game. I'd play it first, finish it, then mark it open to the next one in the queue. And then I'd move to the last spot.

And so on with everyone else on there.

It's just an example. 10 people might not make the scheme viable, but 2, 3, or 4 guys? Well organized and respectful of the system? That's a nice way to play singleplayer games on the cheap.

Except in the current implementation you wouldn't be able to play anything until everyone was finished. The alternative is to create a game specific account, but then you could just share that account anyway.

I expect that Steam set up bundled sharing versus a la carte for these reasons.

Also, how long until we get proper license transfers? This seems like a step in that direction.

EDIT:

LiquidMantis wrote:

Except in the current implementation you wouldn't be able to play anything until everyone was finished. The alternative is to create a game specific account, but then you could just share that account anyway.

I would not object to being able to share specific games with a smaller pool of friends. But I want to see how this system currently works first.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

It's just good to know that you're already thinking about your FFXV yaoi fanfic.

Someone would buy the game. I'd play it first, finish it, then mark it open to the next one in the queue. And then I'd move to the last spot.

And so on with everyone else on there.

It's just an example. 10 people might not make the scheme viable, but 2, 3, or 4 guys? Well organized and respectful of the system? That's a nice way to play singleplayer games on the cheap.

Yes, it would work, if you didn't want to play any other of your steam games during that time period. Otherwise, no matter what steam game you launched, it would kick them out. That's where I don't see it happening.